INTRODUCTION TO LAW

CHAPTER 6

LIMITATIONS IN SEEKING

JUDICIAL RELIEF

w05 2

Potential Accident Site

w05 3

Slip and Fall-Most Common Accident In Retail Establishments

w05 4

Purpose Of Chapter

• There are limitations on bringing lawsuits Cannot sue anyone at anytime for any purpose as frequently as one desires

• Aim of limits on suits is to insure fairness to both sides and efficiency in administration of justice

• Limitations are found in constitutional, statutory and common law

w05 5

Case Or Controversy Requirement

• Defined there must be a genuine dispute between parties or court will normally not hear case (See Art. III Sec. 2 U.S. Constit.)

• United States court system is an adversarial one where there is a genuine dispute parties are energized to use all resources to acquire best evidence, neutral third party can hear this evidence find truth

w05 6

Lawsuits Courts Will Not HearThese Are Not Considered Genuine Controversies

• Friendly law suits• Collusive law suits• Moot questions (keep in mind mootness

exception)• Cases which are not ripe• Cases where the plaintiff lacks standing• Abstract/Theoretical questions ( major

exception for declaratory judgments)

w05 7

Lawsuits Courts Will Not Hear Defined

• Friendly suits arranged lawsuit where parties lack genuine adverse interests

• Collusive suit one party or entity is controlling and financing both sides

• Moot question one where decision of court will have no impact on parties Mootness exception is behavior capable of

being repeated? strong public interest?

w05 8

Lawsuits Courts Will Not Hear Defined

• Ripeness controversy must currently exist, some right or interest must currently be threatened

• Standing person bringing suit must have genuine interest in outcome, cannot bring suit on behalf of another Exception is there a guardianship

relation? power of attorney?

w05 9

Lawsuits Courts Will Not Hear Defined

• Abstract/theoretical questions Defined Parties seek court determination re

meaning of a law or contract provision prior to its being breached or broken

Exception more states are allowing declaratory judgments where a court will render opinion on meaning of law or contract even in absence of dispute (see RCW 7.24.010)

w05 10

Lawsuits Courts Will Not Hear Defined

• Political questions Defined Courts will not hear matters that are

best resolved by a co-equal branch of government (usually executive branch)

If U.S. Constitution assigns power to a certain branch of government court may direct parties there for resolution of matter

w05 11

Lawsuits Courts Will Not Hear Defined

• Political questions Courts are concerned about impact decisions could have if it makes ruling on matters such as foreign affairs Courts are concerned about ability to enforce

decision if ruling in area assigned to another branch of government

Can this leave parties without a remedy? This concept is being seriously challenged by

Congressional action (suits versus Cuba, Saudi Arabia)

w05 12

Lawsuits Courts Will Not Hear Defined

• Act of state doctrine Defined American courts will not rule on

validity of what foreign governments do in their own country

Too many difficulties in enforcement Could have impact on what is being done by

co-equal branch of government

w05 13

Statute Of Limitations

• Defined Period of time in which action must be brought to enforce legal rights or lose ability to do so

• Statute of limitations determined by legislature for civil and criminal offenses

• Purpose (have injured parties promptly bring lawsuits)

w05 14

Statute Of Limitations

• Purpose (cont’d) Prevent loss of evidence Cannot hold D in jeopardy indefinitely

• Washington law RCW 4.16 Ten years recover real property, enforce

judgment Six years enforce written K, recover rent on

real property

w05 15

Statute Of Limitations

• Washington law RCW 4.16 (cont’d) Three years enforce oral contract, sue for

trespass to real property or for loss/damage to personal property

Two years sue for intentional tort Two years suit for any other civil offense which

is not specifically designated in law

w05 16

Statute Of Limitations

• Operation- begins to run once cause of action accrues (once plaintiff has right to sue) When did final circumstance/facts take place

that permits lawsuit? Latent defects statute runs on discovery or

when reasonable person would have made inquiry and discovered harm

w05 17

Statute Of Limitations

• Operation- tolling or suspension of running of statute of limitations

• Done for public policy purposes courts wish to be fair to all parties, avoid an injustice

• Washington law-see RCW 4.16.170-.230 Grounds include: infancy; D conceals self to

avoid service; war; military service; illness or disability; filing lawsuit

w05 18

Res Judicata/Collateral EstoppelGeneral

• Purpose- bars repetitive lawsuits once an issue has been decided, courts will usually not allow a second lawsuit on the same set of facts.

• Know what is meant by privity (legal relationship where more than one party is able to exercise a legal right e.g. partnership-all partners may bring a suit)

w05 19

Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel Res Judicata

• Defined-No second lawsuit by same parties (or persons in privity) on same cause of action and same factual event

• Three elements Same parties same individuals or persons who

are in legal relation w/ them Same cause of action same theory of lawsuit

(e.g.. breach of contract, tort) Same factual event-exact same circumstances

which lead to original suit

w05 20

Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel Collateral Estoppel

• Defined-Court will not hear second lawsuit by same parties (or those in privity) on a different cause of action and same factual event Case will not be heard if most of the essential

facts which Plaintiff needs to prove their case were previously heard and ruled upon

w05 21

Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel Collateral Estoppel

• Elements Same parties same individuals or persons who

are in legal relation w/ them Different cause of action second lawsuit on

grounds different from first suit Same factual event exact same circumstances

which lead to original lawsuit

w05 22

Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel Collateral Estoppel

• Elements • Were essential facts previously litigated In the

earlier lawsuit did the plaintiff fail to prove the same facts that would need to be shown to win this case?

If same facts must be proved suit barred If different facts suit allowed

w05 23

Res Judicata/Collateral EstoppelExceptions

• Courts have the power to allow suits to go forward where it would be manifest injustice not to do so Is there newly discovered evidence or other

grounds justifying waiving these rules?

w05 24

ImmunityGeneral

• Defined What would normally be violation of law is excused (usually applies to what would be considered tortious behavior)

• Feeling is it is in public’s best interest to bar certain lawsuits (This can be unfair as it may leave a plaintiff w/o a remedy)

• This area of law constantly changing certain new immunities being developed, older ones being eliminated

w05 25

Immunity Sovereign Immunity

• Defined bars citizens from suing gvmt. or branch/agency of gvmt

• Background product of Anglo-Saxon legal heritage (monarch could do no wrong)

• Problem leaves plaintiffs without a remedy • Solution increasingly governments are waiving

some or all sovereign immunity (Both U.S. government and Washington state have given up this immunity)

w05 26

Immunity Sovereign Immunity

• Test on whether sovereign immunity applies Is it a discretionary (planning or policy

making) decision? No lawsuit unless actions were unconstitutional or done in bad faith

Is it a ministerial (operational) matter? Government doing what private industry does (fixing streets, etc..)

w05 27

Immunity Government Officials Immunity

• Defined-Government officials/employees cannot be sued for good faith performance of their duties

• Test Was the action taken within the scope of

employment? Did the act go outside scope of

employment and invade rights of others?

w05 28

Immunity Charitable Immunity

• Dying doctrine absent in most states• Former purpose protection of members of

charitable boards, prevent exhaustion of organizational funds (insurance protection now exists)

• Doctrine today In Washington, charitable organizations can be sued, directors protected from suits over their decisions unless grossly negligent in making them

w05 29

Immunity Interspousal Tort Immunity

• Dying doctrine former purpose for barring suit was difficulty of proof and preservation of family harmony

• Doctrine today spouses are treated as distinct legal entities and are free to sue one another (Freehe v. Freehe 81 W2d 183 (1972))

w05 30

Immunity Interfamily Tort Immunity

• Defined Children are barred from bringing suit against their parents with certain exceptions

• Suits allowed in following situations Failure to provide “necessaries” food, clothing,

shelter and education Negligent behavior/diminished parental

capacity Unreasonable discipline (still not clearly

defined)

w05 31

Immunity Immunity Through Contract

• Defined parties to a contract agree not to sue one another

• Courts closely examine such arrangements and will not enforce them if there is an appearance of abuse by one side of the other Did one party have the ability to dictate the

terms? Is this a real and voluntary agreement?

w05 32

Immunity Immunity Through Contract

• Test Is the subject matter a necessary? something

that it would be difficult for one party to do without?

What does the immunizing clause say? construe it in a strict sense

Is there unequal bargaining power or does the agreement appear voluntary?

Construe doubts against drafting party